The role of a critic?

xpost

p.s) you should search for liz phair threads, and post on those too!

"In search of
Saint Cough-syrup" und Rock Kritik ist der Sieg.

Or read Paul Fussell's Bad.

And I know it's something you just do, whether it's paint houses or walk dogs for a living. And the purpose of those jobs is to, well, paint houses and walk dogs. However there is often an end result: house is green, dog is tired...job done.

But I'm talking about JOURNALISTS. They serve a function: to inform and educate. So is the role of a critc the same? That's really all I'm asking be discussed.

Where'd you get this howler?

-to tell me not to buy the new *^*^* record because it's dull. That might not stop me from listening to it, but it will make me give it more thought before spending money. This is only if I trust the critic from past performance.

-to validate my decision to get 8 hours of sleep last night instead of going to see unspecified band.

-to tell me that the Strokes sound just like Television. OK, bad example and it didn't work anyway - but "reccommended if you like..." can sometimes lead to great things. (I can thank Christgau for many of these...)

-to tell Rick Wakeman that he has no talent and should consider retiring. Even if it doesn't work, someone had to go on record and say it.

It has been said often enough that anyone with a pen, notebook, and a few bottles
of wine can become a rock critic. And that is exactly the way I started when, in
late summer 1978, I sent out a complimentary issue of what was then called the
Baltimore/Washington Rock Advocate.

There were two principal forces that shaped my view of a rock critic's
responsibilities. I was then, and remain today, significantly influenced by the
independent philosophy of consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Moreover, I was
marked by the indelible impression left by my law school professors, who
pounded into their students' heads in the post-Watergate era a broad definition of
conflict of interest. These two forces have governed the purpose and soul of my
newsletter, The Rock Advocate, and my books.

In short, the role of the critic is to render judgments that are reliable. They should
be based on extensive experience and on a trained sensibility for whatever is
being reviewed. In practical terms, this means the critic should be blessed with
the following attributes:

Independence. It is imperative for a rock critic to pay his own way. Gratuitous
hospitality in the form of airline tickets, hotel rooms, guest houses, etc., should
never be accepted either abroad or in this country. And what about music
samples? I purchase over 75% of the records I hear, and while I have never
requested samples, I do not feel it is unethical to accept unsolicited samples that
are shipped to my office. Many rock writers claim that these favors do not
influence their opinions. Yet how many people in any profession are prepared to
bite the hand that feeds them? Irrefutably, the target audience is the music
consumer, not the music trade. While it is important to maintain a professional
relationship with the trade, I believe the independent stance required of a
consumer advocate often, not surprisingly, results in an adversarial relationship
with the music trade. It can be no other way. In order to effectively pursue this
independence, it is imperative to keep one's distance from the trade. While this
can be misinterpreted as aloofness, such independence guarantees hard-hitting,
candid, and uninfluenced commentary.

Courage. Courage manifests itself in what I call the "democratic listening."
Judgments ought to be made solely on the basis of the product in the cd case, and
not on the pedigree, the price, the rarity, or one's like or dislike of the producer.
The rock critic who is totally candid may be considered dangerous by the trade,
but an uncensored, independent point of view is of paramount importance to the
consumer. A judgment of music quality must be based on what is on the record.
This is rock criticism at its purest, most meaningful. During a listening, a Wilco
song should have as much of a chance as a Ludacris track.
Overachievers should be spotted, praised, and their
names highlighted and shared with the consuming public. Underachievers
should be singled out for criticism and called to account for their mediocrities.
Few friends from the music commerce are likely to be earned for such outspoken
and irreverent commentary, but music buyers are entitled to such information.
When a critic bases his or her judgment on what others think, or on the music's
pedigree, price, or perceived potential, then rock criticism is nothing more than a
sham.

Experience. It is essential to listen extensively across the field of play to identify
the benchmark reference points and to learn musicmaking standards throughout
the world. This is the most time-consuming and expensive aspect of rock
criticism, as well as the most fulfilling for the critic; yet it is rarely followed.
Lamentably, what so often transpires is that a listening of ten or twelve albums from
a specific region or vintage will be held. The writer will then issue a definitive
judgment on the vintage based on a microscopic proportion of the music. This is
as irresponsible as it is appalling. It is essential for a rock critic to listen as
comprehensibly as is physically possible. This means hearing every significant
album produced in a region or year before reaching qualitative conclusions.
Rock criticism, if it is ever to be regarded as a serious profession, must be a
full-time endeavor, not the habitat of part-timers dabbling in a field that is so
complex and requires such time commitment. Music and albums, like everything
in life, cannot be reduced to black and white answers.

It is also essential to establish memory reference points for the world's greatest
music. There is such a diversity of music and such a multitude of styles that this
may seem impossible. But hearing as many songs as one possibly can in each
year, and from all of the classic musical regions, helps one memorize benchmark
characteristics that form the basis for making comparative judgments between
years, music producers, and musical regions.

Individual Accountability. While I have never found anyone's music-listening
notes compelling reading, notes issued by consensus of a committee are the most
insipid, and often the most misleading. Judgments by committees tend to sum up
a group's personal preferences. But how do they take into consideration the
possibility that each individual may have reached his or her decision using totally
different criteria? Did one judge adore the album because of its typicity while
another decried it for such, or was the music's individuality given greater merit? It
is impossible to know. That is never in doubt when an individual authors a
listening critique.

Committees rarely recognize music of great individuality. A look at the results of
listening competitions sadly reveals that well-made mediocrities garner the top
prizes. The misleading consequence is that blandness is elevated to the status of
being a virtue. Music with great individuality and character will never win a
committee poll because at least one listener will find something objectionable
about the music.

I have always sensed that individual listeners, because they are unable to hide
behind the collective voice of a committee, hold themselves to a greater degree of
accountability. The opinion of a reasonably informed and comprehensive
individual listener, despite the listener's prejudices and predilections, is always a far
greater guide to the ultimate quality of the music than the consensus of a
committee. At least the reader knows where the individual stands, whereas with a
committee, one is never quite sure.

Emphasis on Pleasure and Value. Too much music writing focuses on glamour
British music regions such as London, and in California, L.A. and San Francisco.
These are important, and they make up the
backbone of most serious music enthusiasts' collection. But value and diversity in
music types must always be stressed. The unhealthy legacy of the English
music-writing establishment that a band has to sound good young and be bad old
should be thrown out. Bands that sound great young, are no less serious
or compelling because they must be played within a few years rather than be
shelved for a decade or more before consumption. Music is, in the final analysis,
an art form of pleasure, and intelligent rock criticism should be a blend of both
hedonistic and analytical schools of thought -- to the exclusion of neither.

The Focus on Qualitative Issues. It is an inescapable fact that too many of the
world's renowned makers/producers have intentionally permitted production
levels to soar to such extraordinary heights that many artists' personalities,
concentration, and character are in jeopardy. While there remain a handful of
fanatics who continue, at some financial sacrifice, to reject significant proportions
of demo tapes to ensure that only the finest-quality music is sold under their
name, they are dwindling in number. For much of the last decade production
yields throughout the world have broken records, almost with each new crop of bands.
The results are bands that increasingly lack character, concentration, and staying
power. The argument that more carefully and competently managed groups
result in larger profits is nonsense.

In addition to high yields, advances in technology have provided the savoir faire
to produce more correct music, but the abuse of practices such as acidification
and excessive fining and filtration have compromised the final product. These
problems are rarely and inadequately addressed by the music-writing community.
Album prices have never been higher, but is the consumer always getting a better
song? The music writer has the responsibility to give broad qualitative issues high
priority.

Candor. No one argues with the incontestable fact that listening is a subjective
endeavor. The measure of an effective rock critic should be his or her timely and
useful rendering of an intelligent laundry list of good examples of different
styles of musicmaking in various price categories. Articulating in an
understandable fashion why the critic finds the music enthralling or objectionable
is manifestly important both to the reader and to the producer. The critic must
always seek to educate, to provide meaningful guidelines, never failing to
emphasize that there can never be any substitute for the consumer's palate, nor
any better education than the reader's own tasting of the tune. The critic has the
advantage of having access to the world's music production and must try to
minimize bias. Yet the critic should always share with the reader his or her
reasoning for bad reviews. For example, I will never be able to overcome my
dislike for vegetal-tasting Norah Jones, overtly herbaceous Tori Amos, or
excessively acidic Strokes.

My ultimate goal in writing about music is to seek out the world's greatest songs
and greatest album values. But in the process of ferreting out those songs, I feel
the critic should never shy away from criticizing those producers whose albums
are found lacking. Given the fact that the consumer is the true listener of record,
the "hear no evil" approach to music writing serves no one but the entertainment trade.
Constructive and competent criticism has proven that it can benefit producers as
well as consumers, since it forces underachievers to improve the quality of their
fare, and by lauding overachievers, it encourages them to maintain high standards
to the benefit of all who enjoy and appreciate good music.

(just kidding.. Sort of.)

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/artsdesk/general/2009/10/07/there-will-be-blood-notes-from-the-future-of-music-coalitions-journalism-panel/#comment-33801

http://www.artsjournal.com/jazzbeyondjazz/

Future of music journalism: It's about the audience (?)
The dozen "music journalism" professionals at yesterday's Condition Critical panel of the Future of Music Coalition's three-day long "policy summit" became somewhat divided (at least from my perspective) over the course of a well-attended hour & three-quarters session. At one end of a spectrum of opinion were the old guard -- me, Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune and Tom Moon, formerly of the Philadelphia Inquirer -- asserting that good music journalism puts the music in context, "illuminates, educates and entertains" its readers and reaches beyond its niche to satisfy those who are not devoted yo but may be curious about a given musical topic. At the other was Raymond Leon Roker of URB/URB.com and Todd Roberts, co-founder of the Daily Swarm, who suggested that success in music journalism comes from amplifying, echoing and reinforcing the interests of the largest attractable audience. I may be drawing this too reductively, but it felt like an argument: developing substantive content vs, ever-better marketing, without much interest in content, using the processes of social media.

Wish I was there to understand more of the context in the discussion of what Roker and Roberts mean by "success."

From the full version of the article, I get the impression that the "success" they're talking about = basic financial survival. Making enough to cover overhead and maybe even pay writers. That kind of thing.

anyone who thinks allowing an advertiser to subsidize a story or a Q&A should get another job

anyone whose job depends on promo CDs/free concert tix/etc should get off the soapbox

serious answer from Alfred Kazin (talking about lit, but so what)

https://twitter.com/NickPinkerton/status/700065485665214464

A 1981 Kazin essay called "To Be a Critic" is one of my touchstones. So is Kazin.

A critic is someone whose reactions are so authentic to himself as to become, above all else, interesting for others because illuminative of their own unconscious experience in the presence of art...

...A good critic can uphold any reasonable opinion, if only he will hold it and engage himself with the work of art tat inspired him to it.

A critic is someone whose reactions are so authentic to himself as to become, above all else, interesting for others because illuminative of their own unconscious experience in the presence of art...

Wow this is basically my longheld but unarticulated theory of music crit. I have pondered writing some prolix and tiresome piece to this effect so many times but it is crystallised so clearly and succinctly in the above quote.

My only adjustment would be to clarify that "authentic" in this context includes the clarity and quality of expression.

Authentic is a foul word. How about transparent?

Yeah that's a better word for it.

She said: "The saints found that truthful speaking was more than just
being understood; the important thing was that the better you spoke, the more
other people saw themselves in you, as in a mirror. Or better: the more they
saw themselves through you, as though you had become transparent."

— john crowley, "engine summer"

I love Crowley! I haven't read Engine Summer though.

oh jeez tim, i must tell you it's the most beautiful novel ever. i read it at the tail end of a trip (on a 12 hour flight) and i had the distinct sensation when i finished the book that the characters in the story were far more real than i was, and i wandered about in a daze for about a week (i was on summer break thankfully) unable to do anything but ponder and reread parts of the book

i'm probably overselling it though

That sounds like my reaction to Crowley. How does it rate vis a vis Little Big and The Solitudes?

i haven't read those! though i would guess it would probably read as more "sci fi" than those.

Those are kinda adult fantasy / magic realism. Like somewhere between Gabriel Garcia Marquez and early Guy Gavriel Kay.

i have a hard time describing engine summer. the best i can do is it's like a margaret atwood novel that's a utopia rather than a dystopia. it's probably worth your time.

so authentic to himself as to become, above all else, interesting for others because illuminative of their own unconscious experience in the presence of art...

...A good critic can uphold any reasonable opinion, if only he will hold it and engage himself with the work of art tat inspired him to it.

in practice i would say there are actually < 5 people in the world who are so un-mediocre that any light may be successfully refracted thru them. everyone else sing for your fucking supper

i have a hard time describing engine summer. the best i can do is it's like a margaret atwood novel that's a utopia rather than a dystopia. it's probably worth your time.

― the late great, Thursday, February 18, 2016 3:53 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lmao I love both crowley and atwood but this sounds awful

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kaiser

There's probably a better thread for this but whatever.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-happened-to-the-negative-music-review-1502535600

Would like to read, but I'm not able to.

http://archive.li/kppC7

Enh, I thought it would be a little more. . . idk, interesting of an article?

The main takeaway was something I kind of figured out a while ago: with everybody having access to the same music at pretty much the same time, the playing field has been leveled.

Although, this was cute

A recent album by Radiohead was excessively praised by critics, notes freelance critic Joseph Schafer. “A Moon Shaped Pool,” which includes old songs that the band had performed but had not previously recorded, appeared on many year-end lists. “The band’s first album in five years was half a B-sides collection and half boring,” Mr. Schafer says, who didn’t review the album. “This record was lazy, why didn’t people call the band out?” Radiohead declined to comment.

"half a b-sides collection", really? All those songs were recorded in the studio and released as proper versions on single b-sides before A Moon Shaped Pool was released? Damn, I really need to catch up on all those Radiohead singles I'm apparently missing from my collection!

B-SIDE stands for "Bad Song Is Deathly Egg", all freelance critics use this acronym

xp Yeah, AMSP is not half a b-sides collection, it's their most accomplished album. a better comparison would have been TKOL, but I think that probably got less praise at the time (can't remember)

The fact that famous artists don't get negative reviews is far from a new phenomenon.

Luke Turner from the Quietus wrote on this subject a couple of weeks ago as well:

http://crackmagazine.net/opinion/opinion/when-did-music-journalism-stop-wielding-the-axe/

Brief excursion into the same territory again, towards the end of this piece on Be Here Now, which DL has re-tweeted today to mark the 20th anniversary of the original release:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/06/flattened-by-the-cocaine-panzers-the-toxic-legacy-of-oasiss-be-here-now

(but see also 'Rattle and Hum'/NME staff wars, I guess)